[bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement

Wed Jun 12 12:22:22 EDT 2013

I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and
leave the last part of the final paragraph:

"We further call on the United States Congress to protect the
whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat
these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American
and foreign citizens.[9]"

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> "So we need others to protect him from US.."
>
> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his
> protection, isnt it?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international
>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain
>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually
>> public interest.
>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else
>> would work in this case.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Understood.  But the audience has changed.  There it was the HRC, where
>>> your point might have purchase.  But if we are here addressing US
>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are
>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did
>>> as a clear violation of the law.
>>>
>>>    ____________________________________
>>> Kevin S. Bankston
>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100
>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>> 202.407.8834 direct
>>> 202.637.0968 fax
>>> kbankston at cdt.org
>>>
>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
>>>
>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> As I've mentioned in the document:
>>>
>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future
>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy
>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also
>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement
>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to
>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini <
>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one...
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists
>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list
>>>>> back into cc.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big
>>>>> comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tweaks:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also
>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating".  I am
>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation
>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the
>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA
>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF).  But as far as we know now the
>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the
>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we
>>>>> would never know.  So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics"
>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics.  Right now they are forbidden
>>>>> by law from doing so.  So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph
>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the
>>>>> main point.  We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of
>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is
>>>>> trying to accomplish.  I think the same is true here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> K
>>>>>
>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and
>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights
>>>>> impact of this issue.
>>>>>     ____________________________________
>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston
>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director
>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100
>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct
>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax
>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the
>>>>> letter.
>>>>>
>>>>> C
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might.
>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom
>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting.
>>>>>> best
>>>>>> joana
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini <
>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kevin,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to
>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's
>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a
>>>>>>>> complex law.  And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an
>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate
>>>>>>>> law.  And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute
>>>>>>>> for it.  But I'll do my best!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can
>>>>>>>> give a quick answer:  In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism
>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United
>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United
>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it
>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent
>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is
>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA
>>>>>>>> Court.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans
>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans
>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3)
>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US.
>>>>>>>>  Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent
>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside
>>>>>>>> of America.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code:
>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps
>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen
>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV
>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was
>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT).  Meanwhile, Subchapter
>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and
>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing
>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at
>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also
>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any
>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority
>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and
>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy
>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services,
>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US.  And the assistance of
>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish
>>>>>>>> such amendments.  So--thank you all for what you've been doing!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>>>    ____________________________________
>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston
>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director
>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100
>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct
>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax
>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <
>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input.  I would be happy
>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or
>>>>>>>> Friday.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's
>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>>>>>> > I`ve commented as well and also around all day...
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > M
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [
>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com <webwewant at googlegroups.com>] On
>>>>>>>> > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
>>>>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM
>>>>>>>> > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com;
>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to
>>>>>>>> Congress to
>>>>>>>> > follow up from HRC statement
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> around all day if needed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>> > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web
>>>>>>>> Foundation
>>>>>>>> > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society
>>>>>>>> letter
>>>>>>>> > to the US government from international organisations.  That
>>>>>>>> letter
>>>>>>>> > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights
>>>>>>>> Council,
>>>>>>>> > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> > participate in drafting.  APC agreed to do this and suggested
>>>>>>>> > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and
>>>>>>>> improvements:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb
>>>>>>>> URL)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid
>>>>>>>> > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened
>>>>>>>> inadvertently
>>>>>>>> > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on
>>>>>>>> > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at
>>>>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits.  To bring in
>>>>>>>> others, you
>>>>>>>> > can point them towards this list too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>>>>>> Google Groups
>>>>>>>> > "Web We Want working group" group.
>>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>>>> send an
>>>>>>>> > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>>>>>>> www.apc.org
>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>>>>>>> south africa
>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group.
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group.
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389
>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)<http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
>>>>>> @joana_varon
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>>> + 1 6176979389
>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>> + 1 6176979389
>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)<http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
>>> @joana_varon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
> @joana_varon
>

-- 

-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
@joana_varon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130612/2aaf1b42/attachment.htm>